Summary of Updates to the Request for Proposal: Student Transportation Management Services (Bid File 18-XX) 11/26/2018 Wverall the updated RFP was developed with a focus on: © Increasing the number of Proposers and the competitiveness of Proposals © Standardizing Proposer Responses and Selection Criteria © Setting higher expectations for performance, communication and cooperation “The previous RFP was written in such a way as to dictate all service variables to the Proposing companies (i.e. Type of Buses, Number of Buses by Type, Staff requirements, etc.) yet did not provide specific requirements relatedto performance, communication ‘and cooperation. Thus, the previous RFP allowed no room for Proposers to oe their fexpertise to improve pricing while meeting the school system's service level requirements. The term of the initial contract period was increased from one year to an initial three years from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2022 and ‘allows for the contract to be extended for up to one additional year following the initial service period if the Proposer has a satisfactory evaluation. Extending the initial contract period is established to increase the number of Proposers. The previous RFP also had restrictive practices such as a mandatory pre-proposal meeting with limited jotice. The updated RFP has a non-mandatory pre-proposal meeting which takes place five weeks following the jtial proposal release. In order to maximize driver retention a minimum rate schedule has been specified within the FP (Page 12) as well as a clause that any retained drivers from previous service contractors would, at the minimum, be brought in at the same hourly pay rate as they were paid by previous contractors. The RFP structure was also improved to increase overall clarity. Examples include the following as: 1. Adding a Table of Contents (Pages 2-3) 2. Specifying a detailed Proposal Selection Timeline (Page 4) 3. eae peut prea eae orm cote addressing data items that may appear to be 7 state of Hamilton County Schools (e.g., the addition of Learning Communities, most current student ADM, etc.) (Page 7) 4. Providing full disclosure of District expected Performance Infractions and Penalties (Pages 17 ~ 19) 5. Establishing detailed Proposal instructions (Page 22) To assist the District's ability to evaluate RFP responses we have established detailed Proposal Evaluation Criteria (see Pages 25 ~ 26) with each having assigned Evaluation Point Values. Safety has been identified as the highest falue/most important criterion with 25 out of the total 10 points. There are eight additional criteria: Cost, Busi Stability, Financial Strength, Quality of Service, Human Resource Management, Performance, Fleet Management, sea touting Management Capability. To ensure that the District can accurately evaluate the set Criteria, the ia ae jaS not only provided detailed Proposal instructions (Page 22), but also includes a newly developed seandandead ¢ roposer Questionnaire (Pages 40 - 44) and Proposer Reference Form (Pages 45 — 46). The previous Cost orm (Page 47) was updated to improve clarity. ae 1|Page